The paper (4–6 pages long) is due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool
on Canvas, by 11:55pm Tuesday, February 15 (in PDF or any format easily
converted to PDF, e.g. MSWord).
The following topics are suggestions. If you want to write on another topic, feel
free to do so. It might be a good idea, however, in that case, to check with me
first.
Note that the topics tend to have many sub-questions. You need not (and
probably should not) try to answer all of them. (You certainly should not just
answer them one after another in order—that would make a bad paper.) I put
them there to suggest various directions for thinking about the topic, and in
particular to head off superficial or excessively simple ways of thinking about
it.
The main focus of the paper should be, one way or another, on texts we’ve
read for this class, though you’re welcome to use other material also if it seems
useful/relevant. If you do use outside sources, it should go without saying that you
must cite them, and provide enough bibliographical information that I can figure
out what they are. (For sources from required reading, title and page number
should be sufficient.)
I recommend an attempt to interpret (understand/explain/make sense of) the
views of the authors we’ve read, rather than, say, an attempt to make an
argument of your own against them. (I recommend this particularly if one or more
of these authors rubs you the wrong way or seems obviously wrong or
uninteresting.) All of the suggested topics below are along those lines. This is only
a recommendation, however: I suspect that an effort in this direction is most likely
to produce a good paper, but if you think you have a good idea along other lines,
go ahead and try it.
Suggested topics
1.
What is the importance, according to the authors we’ve read, of using
the proper concepts (or: the proper terms, with the proper definitions)? How
(if at all) can we be sure we have the right ones? (Is there only one way
or are there more than one?) What happens if we have the wrong ones?
(The wrong concepts, that is, or: terms improperly defined, terms without
proper definitions — are all of those the same?) What happens to science in
that case? To philosophy? Pick at least two authors to discuss, one of whom
should presumably be Carnap of the Aufbau. (You might regard earlier and
later Carnap as different “authors” for these purposes).
2.
What, according to the authors we have read, is the relationship between
science and language, and/or between philosophical interest in science and
in language? What, if anything, makes language into an object of special
interest for philosophy and/or science? You may want to contrast different
authors, or to trace changes in a single one (unless you’ve done additional
reading, that would pretty much have to mean Carnap). (If you do contrast
different authors, the contrast need not be simply between Carnap and one
of his critics. Neurath, Putnam, and Quine all attack Carnap in different
ways, though there are also similarities between all three. What role do views
about or attitudes towards language play in this?)
3.
Discuss the meaning of and/or relationship between some of the following
things, according to authors we’ve read: (scientific) theory, observation(s),
common or everyday knowledge, experience, sense data. How (if at all) do
they define them? Which do they consider most certain/reliable, or more
justified, or otherwise better, and why? (In what sense are they or are they
not “empiricists”?) How and on what grounds do they disagree with each
other about these issues? (How, if at all, is it possible to disagree about the
definitions? Can’t everyone define the terms as he or she likes? What would
our various authors say about that?)
4.
What was really important to Carnap, and what wasn’t (in general and/or
at the various stages we’ve seen)? How does this explain the adjustments
in his project as time went on, and/or his response to (one or more of) his
critics? To help with this, you may want to look at the Preface to the second
edition of the Aufbau (which is in your book).
5.
Carnap was an Old Left democratic socialist, Neurath was a Marxist,
Quine was a right wing conservative, and Putnam was (in the period when he
wrote “What Theories Are Not”) a New Left activist. Discuss the relationship
between the political views of these authors (i.e., one or more of them) and
their views in philosophy of science. (I hinted at some things about this in
class, but there’s a lot more to be said.) (Note: to do this well you need to
understand and deal carefully with the philosophy of science aspect, not just
take off on the politics.)
